Vridar: Tim Widowfield, Euhemerism and Richard Carrier

[DCHindley]

I think the problem lies in the fact that Carrier does not use the term in the same way that, say, Merriam-Webster's dictionary does: "interpretation of myths as traditional accounts of historical persons and events". I think that all online dictionaries have a very similar definition. In short, stories about renowned humans (kings, warriers, etc) were embellished until they were "deified" on account of their contributions to the welfare of mankind in general.

This is exactly the opposite of what Carrier asserts, that a mythical divine figure is anthropomorphized into a historical man. Since many here seem to think of Carrier as a God in human form, they completely ignore this atypical use of the term, and blithely go on as if Carrier's definition is the "right" one. Sad ...

FWIW, there has been speculation, discussed on the predecessor forum FRDB, that there was a popular divinity known as "Jesus" who was anthropomorphized. Arthur O. Lovejoy, in "The Theory of a Pre-Christian Cult of Jesus," (The Monist, Vol. 18-4, Oct, 1908, 597-609), critiques a book by W. B. Smith, Der Vorchristliche Jesus (1906) which included essays that proposed a pre-Christian cult of Jesus. A response to Lovejoy's (negative) critique is given by Smith himself in "Professor Lovejoy on 'Der Vorchristliche Jesus'" (The Monist, Vol 19-3, Jul 1909, 409-420). These volumes of The Monist journal are, I am pretty sure, available on http://www.archive.org or scribd, or I wouldn't have them among my documents.

DCH

[maryhelena]

I think the problem lies in the fact that Carrier does not use the term in the same way that, say, Merriam-Webster's dictionary does: "interpretation of myths as traditional accounts of historical persons and events". I think that all online dictionaries have a very similar definition. In short, stories about renowned humans (kings, warriers, etc) were embellished until they were "deified" on account of their contributions to the welfare of mankind in general.

This is exactly the opposite of what Carrier asserts, that a mythical divine figure is anthropomorphized into a historical man. Since many here seem to think of Carrier as a God in human form, they completely ignore this atypical use of the term, and blithely go on as if Carrier's definition is the "right" one. Sad ...


DCH

[Giuseppe]

No, no, you are both wrong.

You are assuming that there is no way of knowing the existence or not-existence of Zeus, Uranus, etc.

While it is a FACT that Zeus, Uranus, etc, didn't exist.

Therefore to rationalize Zeus, Uranus, by inventing or imagining a historical Zeus, Uranus, is pure invention masked as rationalist effort.

Therefore we can call the modern historicists as 'euhemerists' only and only if we have already proved (or assumed) that Jesus didnt'exist.

Therefore Tim is right: 'Mark' is not an euhemerist, because he didn't claim to be a rationalist or a rationalizer when he introduced his first Gospel Jesus.


But 'Mark' moved his not-Christian listeners to become euhemerists, if they were not Jesus mythicists and if they were not converted to Christianity.

Therefore the logical conclusion is that, under the Carrier minimal mythicism, the real Jesus euhemerists were the historicist Pagans.

Conclusion: Maryhelena (with his thesis of political fiction: 'Jesus' would be an asmonean king) is an euhemerist just as Celsus, as Tacitus (if the Testimonium Taciteum is authentic and gospel-derived) as Porphiry, etc.

[maryhelena]

No, no, you are both wrong.

You are assuming that there is no way of knowing the existence or not-existence of Zeus, Uranus, etc.

While it is a FACT that Zeus, Uranus, etc, didn't exist.

Therefore to rationalize Zeus, Uranus, by inventing or imagining a historical Zeus, Uranus, is pure invention masked as rationalist effort.

Therefore we can call the modern historicists as 'euhemerists' only and only if we have already proved (or assumed) that Jesus didnt'exist.

Therefore Tim is right: 'Mark' is not an euhemerist, because he didn't claim to be a rationalist or a rationalizer when he introduced his first Gospel Jesus.


But 'Mark' moved his not-Christian listeners to become euhemerists, if they were not Jesus mythicists and if they were not converted to Christianity.

Therefore the logical conclusion is that, under the Carrier minimal mythicism, the real Jesus euhemerists were the historicist Pagans.

Conclusion: Maryhelena (with his thesis of political fiction: 'Jesus' would be an asmonean king) is an euhemerist just as Celsus, as Tacitus (if the Testimonium Taciteum is authentic and gospel-derived) as Porphiry, etc.

Carrier is wrong - deal with it.......

[Giuseppe]

I recognize that Carrier is wrong only when he says that 'Mark' was an euhemerist.

The proposition : 'Mark euhemerized Jesus' is FALSE.

Therefore Dr. Carrier is strictu sensu wrong.

But the proposition:

the not-Christian Readers of Mark euhemerized Jesus

is TRUE.

And insofar it is right, Carrier's mythicism is right, too.

[maryhelena]

I recognize that Carrier is wrong only when he says that 'Mark' was an euhemerist.

The proposition : 'Mark euhemerized Jesus' is FALSE.

Therefore Dr. Carrier is strictu sensu wrong.

But the proposition:

the not-Christian Readers of Mark euhemerized Jesus

is TRUE.

And insofar it is right, Carrier's mythicism is right, too.

Whether Carrier's version of the ahistoricist/mythicist position is right or wrong has not been the issue here at all. What has been at issue is Carrier's use of Euhemerism to support his mythicist theory. On that issue Carrier is wrong - he has been found wanting. He has no scholar of Euhemerism, no scholarship, to support his atypical usage of euhemerism.

[Giuseppe]

I propose for Maryhelena a little mental experiment:

if I am a priest of Zeus and I demand that you become a believer in a Zeus who does grandiose miracles in Greece,

1) then you can accept (and believe everything that I tell you about a Zeus that works wonders on earth),

2) or you can say that Zeus never existed (Zeus mythicism),

3) or you can accept the historicity of Zeus removing miracles and divinity (Zeus euhemerism).


Is it so difficult to think the same thing about Jesus?

If your answer is 'yes', then you recognize that the Carrier's use of Euhemerism can be corrected without to confute his theory. But you seem to think the opposite: that Carrier's error in use of euhemerism implies the rejection of euhemerism at all to describe how a celestial Jesus was 'factualized' on Earth.

[maryhelena]

I propose for Maryhelena a little mental experiment:

if I am a priest of Zeus and I demand that you become a believer in a Zeus who does grandiose miracles in Greece,

1) then you can accept (and believe everything that I tell you about a Zeus that works wonders on earth),

2) or you can say that Zeus never existed (Zeus mythicism),

3) or you can accept the historicity of Zeus removing miracles and divinity (Zeus euhemerism).


Is it so difficult to think the same thing about Jesus?

If your answer is 'yes', then you recognize that the Carrier's use of Euhemerism can be corrected without to confute his theory. But you seem to think the opposite: that Carrier's error in use of euhemerism implies the rejection of euhemerism at all to describe how a celestial Jesus was 'factualized' on Earth.

[JoeWallack]

Tim Widowfield, over on the Vridar blog, has an article taking Carrier to task re his use of Euhemerism.

What Is Euhemerism?

http://vridar.org/2016/01/25/what-is-euhemerism/

JW:
Euhemer me.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

[maryhelena]

Tim Widowfield, over on the Vridar blog, has an article taking Carrier to task re his use of Euhemerism.

What Is Euhemerism?

http://vridar.org/2016/01/25/what-is-euhemerism/

JW:
Euhemer me.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

How about 'Defying Gravity'......